Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 20:24:14 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5aebe$smd4$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v59p13$smd5$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5a4qc$h08n$1@dont-email.me> <v5a5a1$smd5$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5a657$hgsg$1@dont-email.me> <v5a7vs$smd4$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5a8hi$hsjd$1@dont-email.me> <v5a9bi$smd4$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5abdl$igvh$1@dont-email.me> <v5ac1p$smd4$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v5add4$isal$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:24:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="940452"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5add4$isal$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3296
Lines: 59

On 6/23/24 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/23/2024 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/23/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2024 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/24 6:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You know what the freak I was talking from prior
>>>>> discussions unless your brain is so damaged that
>>>>> you can't remember anything from one post to the next.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case that you affirm that your brain <is>
>>>>> this damaged then I humbly apologize.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>> So you insist on lying about this verified fact?
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp
>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>
>>> According to the semantics of the x86 programming language
>>> when DDD correctly emulated by H0 calls H0(DDD) this call
>>> cannot possibly return.
>>>
>>
>> I won't say it can't be true, but it hasn't been proven, largely 
>> because it seems you don't know how to do a formal logic proof.
>>
> 
> Liar
> 

Then where is the proof?

And were is the simulation that H0 did?

Failure to show where you ACTUALLY PROVED it just shows you a liar.

Remember the parts of a Formal Logic Proof:

1) Statements of propositions that are currently accepted as proven by 
the general field.

2) Valid logical operations (of the field) on those statements to 
produce new statements that proven to be true by combining the accepted 
true statements with the valid logical operations.

3) Repeat 1) and 2) until you get to your proposition.

You haven't done that for anything of significance, and I don't think 
you know how, you always drop into just making an argument, not a proof.